If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I don't personally care about it enough, but if your having a 3rd trimester abortion, your basically killing a full grown baby, and at that point, I think you should get a caesarian section, take it out, and give it to someone else if you really hate it that much. Again, I don't really care enough about that, and for now I stand firmly pro-choice, because I adamantly believe in 1st and 2nd trimester abortions.

I don't personally care about it enough, but if your having a 3rd trimester abortion, your basically killing a full grown baby, and at that point, I think you should get a caesarian section, take it out, and give it to someone else if you really hate it that much. Again, I don't really care enough about that, and for now I stand firmly pro-choice, because I adamantly believe in 1st and 2nd trimester abortions.

3rd trimester abortions are a bit iffy, since the fetus is now a more recognizable baby (not to mention a citizen in the US after 6 months in the womb I believe) so I think a doctor only does those if the mother's life is at risk or the fetus died.

So a job means its somehow not murder? K i'll go get highered to kill everyone, kill everyone, then its okay and not murder somehow.
Or i'll get highered to kill other people whom i don't know and have no real reason to hate, legally i might add, tots not murder.

Another case for abortion that a lot of people don't take into account is the fact that even if abortions were made illegal, they would still be supplied illegally. However, instead of nice, clean, regulated abortion doctors you have over-charging, black market, probably unlicensed "doctors" removing babies with coat hangers. If abortions were made illegal the number of abortions would drop slightly and rate of malpractice and death during abortion would skyrocket.

So a job means its somehow not murder? K i'll go get highered to kill everyone, kill everyone, then its okay and not murder somehow.
Or i'll get highered to kill other people whom i don't know and have no real reason to hate, legally i might add, tots not murder.

Another case for abortion that a lot of people don't take into account is the fact that even if abortions were made illegal, they would still be supplied illegally. However, instead of nice, clean, regulated abortion doctors you have over-charging, black market, probably unlicensed "doctors" removing babies with coat hangers. If abortions were made illegal the number of abortions would drop slightly and rate of malpractice and death during abortion would skyrocket.

So your using the same argument that people have been using for generations to legalize marijuana, yet has been kept illegal for decades and decades and decades of protest and scientific research showing that it is less leathal than cigaretes. Not that i disagree, i am just saying for that argument to have any relevance people have to start actually revering that argument

Elijah, if you're going into university (god forbid), please, for the love of all that is good and green, take an ethics class.

LOL God forbid? My iq is more than likely higher than yours. My family(mom) has a well paying job such that i can afford any university(outside of ivy league) plus my act/sat scores are high enough to probably get a full scholorship, along with the fact i'm coming in with 15+ credits than is required for my state, and have taken classes above and beyond(2 ap classes that i have a 4 on (out of 5)) and 2 dual enrollment classes).

I'm pretty sure academically i'm coming into college better than 90% of people(atleast in my state, and only out of those going to colledge)

So your using the same argument that people have been using for generations to legalize marijuana, yet has been kept illegal for decades and decades and decades of protest and scientific research showing that it is less leathal than cigaretes. Not that i disagree, i am just saying for that argument to have any relevance people have to start actually revering that argument

OK WELL I GUESS SINCE PEOPLE DON'T TALK ABOUT IT AS MUCH IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE THANKS FOR PROVING LEGALIZING ABORTION IS WRONG, ELIJAH WYATT

(Also support for the legalization of marijuana and other drugs,a s well as prostitution, has only grown for the last 30 years, and this argument is the one proponents most frequently used. Hell, several central american countries are considering legalizing drugs because of their huge cartel problem, so I have no idea where you're getting the idea that it has "no sway".)

No, i agree, the argument stands agianst illegalizing abortion, doesn't mean that argument alone makes it the right or wrong choice to be made, it is just one extra thing keeping abortion legal has for it.

And you are right, it does have "tiny" amounts of sway, but it is not a proponent in geting it legalized. The argument has been made for centuries in fact, and every time it is made people ignore it(who can do anything about it). After another 10 years it might be legal, but it is long overdue. It has no sway in the matter of it effecting something in the time it is used. AKA 1970+ the argument has been around specifically for marijuana. It got stomped out in the 70s and 80s, and is just recently on the rise again, but that does not mean it will be legalized.

The main argument for legalizing marijuana is that its hypocritical to allow people to smoke it, but then imprison those who sell it(seing as its racist for one). And as such keeping it illegal also puts many "innocent" people in prison for no reason. If you are going to allow it to be smoked, then you should also allow for it to be sold. No reason to be so b.s. only on the people who actually sell(carry over a gram at a time)
Plus the tax burdon for paying for these people to be incarcirated is also a big proponent that has more and more americans(conservatives at least) changing thier minds.

LOL God forbid? My iq is more than likely higher than yours. My family(mom) has a well paying job such that i can afford any university(outside of ivy league) plus my act/sat scores are high enough to probably get a full scholorship, along with the fact i'm coming in with 15+ credits than is required for my state, and have taken classes above and beyond(2 ap classes that i have a 4 on (out of 5)) and 2 dual enrollment classes).

I'm pretty sure academically i'm coming into college better than 90% of people(atleast in my state, and only out of those going to colledge)

I have a full scholarship, an IQ of 149 (IQ means nothing when it comes to humanities debates such as this one, BTW. logistics are helpful but a lot of debated modern day ethics are based on statistics and scientific findings in areas like psychology and climate change). Anyways, you're going to university, that's great. PLEASE TAKE PHILOSOPHY, ETHICS, LOGIC, ETC. As far as I can gather from everything you've said so far your knowledge base is sorely lacking in these areas, so you're either a very good troll or you need some heavy book learning. You'll probably be going to a college or university where they require you take some non-scientific electives, CHOSE PHILOSOPHY, ETHICS, AND LOGIC instead of talkinga bout how you're probably going to college even though your abilities at basic english make me fairly dubious towards your claim that you'll get high marks on your english and social studies SATs.

BTW i have a 32 on the act (33 (grammar i think its called) 35 math 30 reading 29 science))
taking SAT in a couple of weeks
There is no question of if i'm going to university or not(if i die then maybe...)

Also, IQ isn't everything your right, but intilligence isn't everything either, nor is knowledge, they together make up a big circle. IQ is the possibility to understand knowledge, intelligence is the ability to use knowledge effictively, and knowledge is the thing that is known.

LOL you guys act like i'm not half trolling all the time though, i don't really agree with 40% of the stuff i say on here. I just like arguing, finding the side people disagree on, and then supporting it the best way i can think of how to do. Its really fun. The rest is either my ramblings, me actually using my brain, or just straight my own baised oppinion.

IQ does mean something. If you mean its current incarnation cannot acurrately track those above 140, and below 60, then you are right. The iq system was designed to gauge people accurrately between 3 s.d., everything else is not necesarilly a shot in the dark, but it has a decent acuraccy of being close.

No, i agree, the argument stands agianst illegalizing abortion, doesn't mean that argument alone makes it the right or wrong choice to be made, it is just one extra thing keeping abortion legal has for it.

BUT IT DOES. You're talking about the legitimacy of abortion as if it's a very easy to conclude upon moral issue, when in actuality it has many facets. You're being semantic about what you're trying to argue, to the point where what you're arguing has no practicality. The morality of abortion, whether or not it is right or wrong to get one on some vague ethical scale, is arbitrary at best, and the only real way to argue about it is the practicality of making them acceptable on a societal scale, for a utilitarian gain.[/quote]

Originally Posted by ElijahWyatt

And you are right, it does have "tiny" amounts of sway, but it is not a proponent in geting it legalized. The argument has been made for centuries in fact, and every time it is made people ignore it(who can do anything about it). After another 10 years it might be legal, but it is long overdue. It has no sway in the matter of it effecting something in the time it is used. AKA 1970+ the argument has been around specifically for marijuana. It got stomped out in the 70s and 80s, and is just recently on the rise again, but that does not mean it will be legalized.

It is a proponent. A good friend of mine is part of the marijuana party of Canada, and it's an essential part of their platform. Whether or not it was quelched in the 70s or 80s is irrelevant to the validity and proponency of the argument, since the reason it was quelched was because of NARCs and Nancy raegan, who made sure any talk about it was as taboo as communism.